An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,May be an oxymoron,But when missionaries start their trolling, There's less Oxy and more Moron.

+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT!

I've concluded that the only way to deal with this whole 5d mk2 vs D800 'debate' is to answer with a little 'nonsense' rhyme

Well, when you have radical, yet diametrically opposed totally blind fools on either side of the argument, like Trumpet and Mikael, it is difficult to make any argument that doesn't get twisted and destroyed by either a brazen lack of understanding or intentional misinterpretation. Poetry seems the only viable alternative.

...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motiveThis is a strait comparison which shows two different sensors signal/noise in shadows and the cameras are exactly the same exposed...

Not taking sides here, but what software was used to do the lifts? Point being all softs are not all going to do it with the same quality. The Canon shot looks like a total mess compared to what I get from 5D3 shots doing similar lift.

...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motiveThis is a strait comparison which shows two different sensors signal/noise in shadows and the cameras are exactly the same exposed...

Not taking sides here, but what software was used to do the lifts? Point being all softs are not all going to do it with the same quality. The Canon shot looks like a total mess compared to what I get from 5D3 shots doing similar lift.

There has always been a question about the objectivity of that particular sample shot from Ankorwatt. It has been requested on several occasions that he produce the actual RAW images with metadata, and all we have ever received in return is obfuscation and avoidance.

There is no denying that the D800 has a DR advantage at low ISO, but as you've stated...it is rare to actually encounter that kind of noise in a normal lift. When you are DR limited, it can definitely happen, though. There is a key difference between the 5D III and 1D X that might cause the 1D X to experience worse noise, however: The 1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips. When pixel data from the sensor is split and sent to two separate DSPs for processing, additional banding will usually be introduced. The 7D has the same problem. The 5D III, however, uses a single DIGIG 5 chip to process the whole image, so it is entirely possible it is capable of cleaner shadow lifting than the 1D X.

Took you long enough, but at least you've finally acknowledged your ignorance. Congratulations! It's the first step towards knowledge.

In the digital realm, a proper exposure is one in which an image of an 18% gray card results in values in the green channel of the raw file of 18% of the maximum value that can be recorded. With a 16-bit file, values range from 0 through 65,535; 18% of that is 11,796.

The red and blue values will be less than the green values in all but the weirdest light. Typically, red will be a bit more than a stop relatively underexposed and the blue will be about 2/3 stop underexposed. White balancing consists of multiplying the figures from the two underexposed channels so they equal the figures from the properly exposed channel.

Digital exposure compensation is the same basic idea, but applied equally to all three channels. One stop of digital push is accomplished by doubling all the figures in the raw file. One stop of digital pull is done by halving all the figures.

After white balancing and exposure adjustments, a gamma curve is generally applied (with 2.2 being typical of most working spaces). Next, if it's a colorimetric workflow, the ICC profile for that camera is applied. Much more common, however, is that this is where the "special sauce" gets applied. Canon calls them, "picture styles." At the very least, an S-curve is applied (on top of the gamma curve) to boost contrast in the midtones (at the expense of highlight and shadow contrast, of course) and different parts of the spectrum are selectively saturated by different amounts. (It's always added saturation because the camera's native color response is so much larger than any working space). After that, whatever other types of additional modifications (more or less contrast, shadow boost, whatever) are up to you.

In scenes with reflective highlights or the light sources themselves, you generally want to intentionally underexpose the image because otherwise those highlights will oversaturate the sensor and one or more of the channels will record the maximum value for those parts of the image. Underexposing allows those values to fall in a range that can be recorded by the sensor; digital push is then applied to most of the image to restore it, but a compressed push is applied to the highlights -- if you didn't compress the boost in the highlights, they'd wind up just as blown as if you had properly exposed the image in the first place.

Scenes like that are so common in typical shooting that manufacturers intentionally design their meters to underexpose by about a stop. The onboard raw development engine that produces JPEGs applies a corresponding amount of compressed digital exposure compensation, and the various popular raw development engines are smart enough to do the same. There are, however, many tools out there that will let you examine the raw data directly should you choose to play around.

(That scene of the shed in my back yard where I moved the camera's exposure bug six stops to the left, that resulted in an almost entirely black exposure with just hints of detail? The one which came out almost entirely free of noise except for a small amount in the deepest shadows after normalizing the exposure? Considering the meter's built-in underexposure, it was really about seven stops underexposed.)

Well, at least you've made clear why it is that you can't properly expose an image to save your life.

Sorry, if you're really happy wallowing in your own ignorance and incompetence like this, there's nothing I or anybody else can do to help you with your problems.

And, yes. That's exactly what you're doing. All those shots you keep posting of noisy images taken with a 1DX? That's a display of pure incompetence; no competent photographer ever has anywhere near as much trouble with noise on any modern camera -- let alone a flagship model -- as you keep demonstrating with your 1DX. And it's an incompetence born of ignorance -- ignorance of how to properly expose an image using a DSLR.

Why you're so happy with your ignorance and incompetence is beyond me...but chacun son goût.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 02:23:53 AM by Skulker »

Logged

If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

I had a look at the pram photos again and frankly I like the pram on the left. The one on the right is a bit - flat! No character. Just plain dowdy...

Uhmmm.. I think it's an awning, not a pram.

It's also a reasonable choice of scene for such a comparison push-test, with sunlit areas of near-white masonry in the background contrasting with the darks shades of a (nearly) black awning in the shade with its upper side illuminated and the underside in yet deeper shadow. Not a super-high DR scene, but one with enough DR to be able to demonstrate the difference in sensor system noise levels.

I think Ankorwatt is being generous by comparing a 1Dx to a D800. Had he used a camera below Canon's current flagship, the difference would have been even more significant. As it is, the Nikon was half the cost of the 1Dx.It could have been an even bigger cost/performance difference if he'd have used a Nikon D5100 compared to a Canon 7D.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.

Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons. Seriously. There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.

Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons. Seriously. There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis.

Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it ...

Many potentially useful threads have been derailed by the very thing the that instigates the 'humor' or outright attacks that lead to thread moderation/locking. I'd say the inflammatory posts are those posts that are made knowing exactly what outcome will result. Before ankorwatt/Mikael had his Mikeal account and all his posts deleted, we'd seen that awning comparison in at least 10 threads, and countless QPcards on barbecues, sheds, and now pianos.

Go to an astronomy forum, and in any thread which mentions the solar system, post a modern diagram of ours and state that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong. That's just stating a fact, but after a while its going to start pissing people off...and that's not even considering the fact that there aren't many devotees of the Ptolemaic model.

Maybe there are people on Nikon forums who repeatedly post the same example images to show how certain of Canon's lenses are better than the Nikon equivalent. If so, that's just as inflammatory. Should Mikael be insulted for posting the 'truth' that the D800 has a wider DR? No. But repeated posting of the same contrived examples is the epitome of tedious, and downright annoying. Since he's repeatedly posting those examples in response to those he's argued with on many previous occasions, he knows exactly the response it will provoke. That he does it anyway, again and again, and indeed seems to have created new accounts just to do so, says a lot about his character.

with what should I answer for example trumpet power when he declare that 5dmk3 and 1dx has the same exposure latitude that d800 ? = large DR?

Mikael, I have never, ever claimed any such thing.

My point is, and always has been, that, though the D800 offers marginally more dynamic range, the dynamic range of the 5DIII and 1DX is already most substantial. When you can take a 5DIII image that's been so grossly underexposed that it's mostly black on the preview window and easily rescue it into a clean file suitable for extreme enlargements, it's meaningless to bitch about how S___ty its dynamic range is -- which is basically all you do here. It's as meaningless as bitching that minivan x is crippled because it "only" has a top speed of 95 mph, and we know this to be true because minivan y has a top speed of a whopping 105 mph.

So who cares that you can rescue even more grossly underexposed images with a D800?

If you can't get clean images in bright light -- and all you do here is post very noisy images taken in very bright light -- then the problem isn't even close to being with the equipment. The problem is the gross incompetence of the person operating the equipment.

Lots of people here have posted examples of very clean images taken with the 5DIII and 1DX in extreme situations. And those same people have tried to explain to you the basic, introductory-level photographic techniques they used to achieve those results. Yet you continue to insist that those people haven't a clue...while you go on to post yet more really bad snapshots plagued with all sorts of technical problems, all the while insisting that you know more about technique than those who don't have your problems.

Dude, the problem isn't your gear. Your gear is just fine. The problem is with the person who's operating your gear.

Neurowith what should I answer for example trumpet power when he declare that 5dmk3 and 1dx has the same exposure latitude that d800 ? = large DR? well, I show it with a comparison from 1dx and d800 ,

Do you think your comparison convinced him? Since he's seen it at least a dozen times and still responded the way he did, it's pretty obvious that showing him the same comparison a 13th, 20th, or 200th time won't convince him, either. Did you notice that I've given up responding to your comparison posts? It became pointless.

There's a sign over the bar in The Squealing Pig, a pub near where I work, taken from a Robert Heinlein quote: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all. I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower. The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless. Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on.

.....So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all. I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower. The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless. Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on. </rant>

That is good advice all around.I think that too often people are compelled to post something in response to a post, even if it's not contributing to the actual technical aspect.

Amending it for an internet based discussion forum would likely go something more like, "If you can't contribute something useful to the topic, please reconsider posting anything at all."

I have to commend all involved that, at least from what I've seen recently, the level of rancour amongst differing viewpoints has taken a more civil route, even on this topic which has been beaten to death since I joined up a year ago to discuss this very issue.

So thank-you, various posters, for doing your best to remain civil. It improves what is already one of the better places for photographic discourse.

Now for the tech contribution to the topic: I think we'll find that, as Canon moves into DiGiC 5 products, we'll see somewhat less of the general noise and banding issues which plagued a few of the DiGiC 4 equipped models and may have been less of a problem with earlier DiGiC 2 & 3 bodies.

A recent chat with a Canon rep, busy as ever manning a booth, solo in front of a large crowd of curious onlookers, who said that there are many improvements in DiGiC 5 for high AND low ISO noise issues... A point he was eager to make when I told him that I'd dumped all my DiGiC 4 bodies due to poor noise performance for my uses.He then handed me a 6D and asked me to play with it a while and let him know what i thought of it compared to the 5D2 I had... I know he already knew the answer to that.

Gotta say, other than the reduced overall noise and noticeably reduced FPN on the 6D, the thing I really like about it is the smoother quieter shutter. The 5D2 had such a crude THWACK! along with significant body shake induced by that big mirror being let loose and poorly damped. The 6D feels more like a nicely balanced match-rifle than the shotgun-like 5D2. it's even nicer, i think, than the quick CRUNCH sound the D800's shutter makes.I haven't had a chance to really shoot with a 6D, likely won't unless I buy one. Likely won't do that either until I find a compelling enough reason to go back to Canon for FF. And about the only reason that will be is if my hankering for a tilt-shift 24mm is not satisfied by the upcoming Samyang for F-mount.Plunking a 6D on the back of Canon's fabulous 24 and 17mm TS lenses will likely be the most practical solution for some of what I want those lenses for. This might have been speeded up, somewhat, if the darn resale value for D800s was better. All those factory refurbs have dropped my resale value to the point where I now will likely have to keep using both of them for at least a year to get more value from them.